Does An Offer In Compromise Survive A Taxpayer’s Death?

Today we will discuss offers in compromise:

§ 301.7122-1 Compromises.

(e) Acceptance of an offer to compromise a tax liability.

(1) An offer to compromise has not been accepted until the IRS issues a written notification of acceptance to the taxpayer or the taxpayer's representative.

Let’s talk about Jacqueline Farwell.

She had gotten herself into a tax mess for years 2008 through 2011, 2013 and 2015. The IRS had recorded a lien for almost $120 grand.

 She was deep into medical care and quickly burning thorough cash. She requested a CDP hearing and proposed an offer in compromise for $100.

COMMENT: We are so accustomed to the pennies-on-the dollar nonsense on radio and late-night television that we forget that real offers exist. Take an elderly person with diminishing assets, severe expenses, minimal or no likelihood to earn again and the IRS might accept $100. What the IRS won’t accept is a 40-something skipjack with plenty of earning power but an impaired sense of personal responsibility.

In February 2020 the IRS examiner requested updated financial information.

Farwell died in March 2020.

Nobody said anything.

In April 2020 the examiner told Farwell’s attorney that she advised accepting the offer.

Nobody said anything.

In September 2020 the IRS sent a letter that it had accepted the offer.

Nobody said anything.

Mind you, the IRS did not realize that Farwell was dead.

COMMENT: There may be reasons why the estate stalled - perhaps disagreement among the heirs, a delay in hiring lawyers, deciding who would have tax power of attorney. Still, it is … odd. I can see the IRS feeling manipulated.

In November 2020 the IRS realized her death and pulled the offer.

The estate asked Appeals to reinstate the offer. The IRS refused, arguing that mutual mistakes – not telling the IRS, for example - were made.

Off to Tax Court they went.

Our question is: does an offer in compromise survive the death of the taxpayer who requested it?

The estate argued that Regulations prevented the IRS from reopening the matter unless there was false information, concealment, or mutual mistake. The estate had that September letter and had no intention of giving it back.

COMMENT: Partially true. The IRS was prevented from reopening in the event there had been offer and acceptance.

The Code is not clear what happens when the taxpayer dies before acceptance. The Internal Revenue Manual however is.

5.8.7.5 (04-24-2025)

Termination of Consideration

1.      Consideration of an offer must be terminated upon the death of a single proponent. See IRM 5.8.10.4, Deceased Taxpayers and Estates. The date of termination is the taxpayer's date of death and the date used for the TC 482. If the taxpayer’s date of death is prior to the offer submission, refer to IRM 5.8.10.4.1, Death of a Taxpayer. Offers that are terminated do not receive appeal rights. See IRM 5.8.10.4.1, Death of a Taxpayer, for instructions on actions to take when advised that one party to a joint offer has died.

The estate was not impressed. The Internal Revenue Manual does not have the force of law, it hissed.

True, noted the Court, but it was in line with the statute and Regulations.

But we have a letter from the IRS accepting the compromise, the attorney whinged.

The letter was sent in error - one the estate contributed to - and the IRS was not bound by the error.

The attorney returned to the mutual mistake exception, arguing that mutual mistake was impossible as one of the parties was deceased.

The IRS repeated: look at Section 7122. An offer has to be accepted. Any extant powers expired when Farwell died, and there was a period after the death before an attorney was hired and a new power filed. A dead person cannot accept.

The IRS knew about Farwell’s terminal illness. You are accomplice to this, the attorney shrilled.

Methinks the attorney was losing it.

The IRS pointed out the obvious: have the estate submit its own offer in compromise. Farwell’s individual offer would wrap up, and the two sides could move to the estate’s offer. There is a whiff of common sense here ….

NO!! bayed the attorney.

Why? I presume that assets remained in the estate. Enough assets that the estate did not want to part with them.

Let’s return to Section 7122 at the top of this blog.

Requirement one: was there a written notice?

Maybe, possibly, perhaps that September letter, although one would be hard-pressed to argue that it had been sent to taxpayer’s representative.

Requirement two: was there acceptance of said notice?

No. Farwell had passed away. The estate had not yet named a new power. There was no one who could represent the estate at that instance.

The IRS won.

Our case this time was Estate of Jacqueline R. Farwell, U.S. Tax Court, No. 11555-22L, T.C. Memo 2026-95.

Personal Liability for Estate Taxes

 

Here is a greeting card for a bad day:

… the Internal Revenue Service … determined that the … Estate of Georgia M. Spenlinhauer (estate) is liable for an estate tax deficiency of $3,984,344.”

In general, when I see estate tax numbers of this size, I presume that there are hard-to-value assets. The estate will argue that the assets are illiquid, near unmarketable, and that it would be fortunate to get a thousand or two thousand dollars for them. The IRS of course will argue that the real numbers approach the GDP of many small countries. The Court will often decide somewhere between and call it a day.

Let me see what was at play.

• Whether the estate timely elected an alternative valuation date;
• Whether the estate may exclude $200,000 pursuant to a qualified conservation easement; 
• Whether the value of (yada, yada) was $5.8 million or $3.9 million.

So far it looks like another valuation pay per view Friday night fight.

• Whether the petitioner is liable as transferee for the estate tax deficiency.

That was unexpected.

What happened here?

In February 2005, Georgia Spenlinhauer passed away at the age of ninety-five. She appointed her son as executor. After paying expenses and specific bequests, the son/executor received the residue of the estate. Probate was closed in March 2009.

The executor/son requested and received an extension for the estate tax return until May 2006.

The accountant cautioned the executor/son that he did not have expertise in estate taxation and did not prepare or file estate tax returns as part of his practice.

As a practitioner myself, I get it. The executor/son had to find another practitioner – attorney or CPA – who did estate work.

The executor/son decided not to file an estate return.

COMMENT: I believe we have pinpointed the genesis of the problem.

In 2013 the executor/son filed for bankruptcy.

Through the bankruptcy proceeding, the IRS learned that he had never filed a tax return on behalf of the estate.

In 2017 he finally filed that estate tax return.

The return was audited.

In January 2018, the IRS disagreed with the numbers. It wanted money. It issued a Notice of Deficiency.

Of course.

In March, the IRS made a jeopardy assessment against the estate.

COMMENT:  Whoa! A jeopardy assessment usually indicates that the IRS suspects concealed assets or otherwise anticipates that a taxpayer will make collection difficult. Jeopardy makes the tax, penalty, and interest immediately due and payable. The IRS is authorized to begin immediate collection, without the usual taxpayer safeguards baked into the system.

A jeopardy assessment is not routine, folks.

Did I mention that the IRS was also simultaneously pursuing the assessment against the executor/son personally? Why? Because he had drained the estate to zero with the distribution to himself.

This would not turn out well. There are certain elections - such as an alternate valuation date - that must be made on a timely-filed return. Filing 11 years late is not a timely filing. There were the usual valuation disputes (I can use municipal assessment amounts as asset values! No, you cannot!). There was even a self-cancelling promissory note that got added to the estate (to the tune of $850 grand).

COMMENT: I have not seen a self-cancelling note in a moment. The attorneys worked hard on this estate.

A brutal audit adjustment involved certain litigation fees on an estate asset. The Court decided that the litigation benefited the executor/son and not the estate itself, meaning the estate could not deduct the fees. There went a quick half million dollars in deductions.

Yep, up the asset values, disallow certain deductions. The estate was going to owe - a lot.

And penalties.

The executor/son protested the penalties. To be fair, he had to. His argument?

He had relied on his accountant.

The same accountant who told him that he did not do estate work.

You gotta be kidding, said the Court. They approved the penalties in a hot minute.

There were no assets left in the estate, of course. How was the IRS to collect?

Oh no.

Oh yes.

The executor/son had exhausted the estate by distributing assets to himself. He had transferee liability to the extent of the assets distributed.

Personal liability.

This was not the routine valuation case that I first expected. This instead was closer to a Greek tragedy.

But why? The estate was large enough to obtain creative legal advice. A reasonable person must have suspected that there would be tax reporting, which work was beyond the skill set of the family’s regular accountant. Heck, the accountant was clear that he did not practice in this area. Rather than seek out another accountant (or attorney) with that skill set, the executor/son did … nothing.

Granted, the tax was the tax, whether the return had been timely filed or not. The additional weight was the penalties and interest. What were the penalties? I saw them near the beginning ….

$524,520.

Wow.

Our case this time was Estate of Spenlinhauer v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-134.

The Old Three And Two

 

You will recognize the issue.

During 2017 Mary deNourie worked at a retail store. She had wages of $11,516 and social security of $7,559. She and her husband did not file an income tax return because the withholding was enough to cover any tax due.

In 2021 the IRS contacted them about not filing a 2017 tax return. The IRS was preparing a substitute for return showing the wages and social security as well as partnership income of $25,065. When you throw the partnership into the mix, they now owed tax of $4,192, plus interest and penalties.

What partnership income, they exclaimed? The partnership had not paid them anything.

COMMENT: That is not the way partnerships are taxed. For example, a 10% partner will generally be taxable on 10% of the partnership’s taxable income. This amount is reported to a partner on Schedule K-1, a copy of which goes to the IRS. Whether the partner has received cash to go with that K-1 does not matter to the IRS. That is a matter for the partner to take up with the partnership.

I then see a court order in April 2023 releasing the husband from the matter.

That is unusual. What happened?

The IRS had not sent out a Notice of Deficiency – the 90-day letter – to the husband. This is a no-no. The IRS also has rules and procedures, and each spouse (on a joint return) must receive his or her own Notice of Deficiency. Mary received hers. He did not.

Now Mary was on her own.

Coincidentally, the partnership income went away.

COMMENT: It appears the husband owned the partnership.

We are back to Mary’s W-2 and social security.

Mary and the IRS worked on an agreement. There was no tax due for 2017. In fact, there was an overpayment of $284.

Mary wanted the $284.

Can’t blame her.

The IRS said no.

Mary in response refused to sign the agreement.

In March 2024 Mary filed a tax return for 2017. She wanted her refund.

What do you think: will Mary receive that refund?

Here is the relevant law:

Sec. 6511 Limitations on credit or refund

Period of limitation on filing claim. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title which is required to be paid by means of a stamp shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid.

Right or wrong, there is a limit on how long you can wait to file for a refund. If you file a return, for example, you have three years to amend for a refund.

There is a riff on the above rule if you file now and pay later. The Code will then permit a refund until 2 years after the tax is paid if that date is after the three-year date.

Notice what this three-and-two have in common:

          You filed a return.

If you do not file a return, the rule gets grimmer:

          You have until 2 years after the tax was paid.

If you file, you start with three and might move to two – and only if two allows for more time.

Don’t file and you have two – period. You have no choice.

Let’s see what Mary did:

·       Mary’s 2017 tax return was due April 15, 2018.

·       She did not file, so the mandatory two-year rule applies.

·       There is still hope, though. If she files within three years – by April 15, 2021 – she can flip the mandatory two back to the normal three-and-two.

o   She filed 2017 in March 2024.

Nope. Too late all around.

Mary had no tax due for 2017, but she likewise had no refund for 2017.

My thought? If you have withholding, consider filing even if there is no tax due. Why? Because withholding represents tax paid, and not filing triggers the mandatory two-year rule. By filing you move to the three-and-two rule. It may save you; it may not, but it provides more breathing room than the alternative.

Today we discussed Mary deNourie v Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, docket 18182-22.